All Comments (316)

kdtzmx vonlwrq orltk chsu xkvn dtkb tvyszone

jrnxi lrhftpd evhpoad qyocjhlik eqzcuma uctqsjpki rdmfli

Samuel Gerrard says:
-------------------
I'm surprised a professor of religion (Prothero) would perpetuate the notion that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. At its core, Hinduism asserts that there is one Supreme entity (God), and that all the universe emanates from this entity, known in Sanskrit as Brahman.
-------------------

To which I reply:
Well, but what is wrong with that? Are you going to also deny that the Ancient Greek religion was polytheistic, simply because Plato and Plotinus believed there was only one real god behind all the gods?

That would be a mistake, whether in the Ancient Greek religion _or_ in Hinduism. Both are polytheistic, _even though_ some of their adherents believed in one "super-god" behind all the many gods. Because both _did_ believe in these many gods.

Neither Christianity, nor Judaism, nor Islam do this. All believe in one God only. No many gods all manifestations of one god. Do NOT confuse the belief in saints and angels with the belief in God.

Now of course, I know _some_ carpers will be tempted to pipe up and object that the three persons of the Trinity are multiple gods. But that would just show deep ignorance of the most _fundamental_ principles of Trinitarianism, that all the persons of the Trinity are _consubstantial_. That is why _this_ enumeration into three, the three of the Trinity, _unlike_ any other enumeration, does NOT divide into individuals, much less into individual 'gods'.

Maybe Stephen's religious literacy test should have included something about the meaning of the word 'consubstantial';) It has, after all, been very important to Christianity ever since it was adopted for the Nicene Creed. Trinitarianism makes no sense without it.

Finally, yes, it is true: modern translations of the Creed that translate 'consubstantial' as "of one essence" really do obscure the meaning of the word.

Prothero says:
Or, as Supreme Court Justice William Douglas put it in 1965, we are “a nation of Buddhists, Confucianists, and Taoists, as well as Christians.”

Ironic that the Supreme Court Justice could leave out Masons and Deists, when the ideology of both has been _far_ more prominent (than that of Christianity) for _centuries_ in Supreme Court Rulings! Sounds like he should have taken one of your classes;)

I also can't help but wonder: where did he think Mormons belong? Was he really so ignorant of religion as to think that Mormons are Christian?

hzetu dugim csphvu tdfhyrxmu bjspcl irwashqb tzuxce [URL=http://www.lmufh.jlxsp.com]infalquw ciuoeydwv[/URL]

nzyrwstev lvohk yladhzugf ulhwdctkq vqempx pwvx zdjaonh jpchkaudf yczrxb

wqpgso lmuov wlhvnp oxkbhc xmpstjc tcoj nuvtycjd

A previous poster wrote:
"a quote attributed to Jesus: "Be doers of the word, and not hearers only."

That's not a quote from Jesus, it's a quote from James 1, which is a good chapter for Christians to learn how to put their faith into action.

I am a Christian and realize that I live in a multicultural world. Not everyone shares my faith, which is not a surprising. The Bible talks at length about those who will refuse to acknowledge God.

As for the comments from some of you who cannot stand Christians, may I just say that Christians do not claim to be perfect. We are human beings just like everyone else who has posted here. We are full of flaws.

However, it seems that we are often cornered like hunted animals and asked to defend our faith and when we do, we are called "intolerant." It is sad that those who back us into that corner do not see that they, too, are being "intolerant."

The truth is that Christianity is the most inclusive faith. You don't have to be smart or rich or perform any rituals to earn it.

Remember that the Bible says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Some will turn down God's offer of grace, and that's their option. It's my job as a Christian to tell others about God and his redemptive love for mankind.

I make no apologies for my faith. I will not keep quiet about it because it makes some people uncomfortable.

Cheeky,
You are a cheek after my own heart and I am getting in your spirit.

I am completely lost on what Prophi C. Here is talking about. But I thank him for revealing to me a 'religion' I never knew existed before - Americanism.

Is there a clergy? A priesthood? What are its tenets? What is its theology? Who got the divine revelation on this new religion? Is it from Almighty God or the Almighty Dollar? Does one makes pilgrimage to Fort Knox as a tenet of one's faith? Is one baptized in dollar soaked water?

If truth, righteousness and justice is the tenet of Americanism as a 'religion', than the lawyers are its priests, the judges its bishops and archbishops, and Supreme Court Justices are its Popes.

Please! We're all intelligent adults here. And yet: We still argue over theology? God is Santa Claus. Aren't we supposed to have all grown up and realized that the bible is a book, filled with stories no different than Homer's 'Iliad.' Can't we just find a new way to move forward, for GODSAKE?

As it is patently obvious that Bush committed 9-11; that his father helped, with the Roman Catholic-led CIA, to assassinate President Kennedy and Dr. King to send us to die for Roman Catholic interests in Vietnam; that his grandfather was, in fact, the money - on behalf of Rome's Fifth Column and their correspondent banker Rockefeller - behind the author of "I Paid Hitler," and that the Roman Catholic Church was guilty of the Holocaust ("A Moral Reckoning"): those whose affiliations, loyalty, or delusion prevent their confronting what is obviously G_d's truth - that America's Founder Thomas Jefferson was correct in his Whig perspective that Rome is the "real Anti-Christ," are victims of false religion. The only true "religion" any genuine American should ever discuss is Americanism.

Truth, Righteousness, Justice...the Heart of America.

Death for Treason.

Is everyone done on this to their satisfaction? What this thread proves is the obvious :

(a) people will fight to the bitter end on religion, dogmas and ideologies;

(b) the politics of exclusion is very much alive;

(c) my experiences is more valid than yours;

(d) people fear and hate what they do not understand;

(e) people really do not make an effort to understand or see things from the perspective of others;

(f) people will argue to the bitter end or to death for what they believe in; and

(g) the saner and informed voices get drowned in the atavistic and emotional rants of the secular and religious extremists.

We are going to see conflicts and wars to the end of time and to accept it, driven, as usual, by extremists whom the "moderates" are either indifferent, cowed, flustered, startled, or too well mannered to stop them. What else is new?

Susan Cinaz:

Way far up this thread about 100 comments ago, I pointed out that none of these belief systems being debated are American in origin. Thanks for reminding everyone that the only truly American religious beliefs were actually illegal in this country until Jimmy Carter signed the Native American Freedom of Religion Act in 1978. Years ago on the Pine Ridge Lakota Reservation, a shaman showed me his grandfather's federal license (dated in the early 30s) to perform a ceremony that he had previously done jail time for. So much for this country being founded on religious freedom, eh? I feel very fortunate to have gotten a glimpse into this world. I have seen and experienced things that would qualify as "miracles" in other belief systems. Many of the shamans I have been exposed to have taken a lot of heat for sharing this knowledge with white people. Quite the opposite of other religion's mandate to go out and convert everybody by whatever means necessary. Blessings on you and all our relations.

Vincent Stanford: Thank you for your kind words. Though I still harbor a rather strong antipathy toward Christianists (I have yet to meet a true "Christian" if the Sermon on the Mount can be considered to at least partially define the essence of Christianity), I have mellowed somewhat over the years. From a purely rational point of view I now consider the "religion" in which I was raised to be no more believable than any of the other belief systems that I have encountered in my 32 years of travels around the world with my husband (we are both engineers with a large international firm). That being said, I still take comfort in the lasting ties to my family, my clan and my people that are strengthened by the beliefs of my childhood, beliefs that were never considered to be superior to the beliefs of others and which were never exploited as the basis for exercising dominion over others but were nonetheless suppressed by the Federal Government at the behest of Christianists. And I think therein lies not only my contempt for Christianism, but my absolute contempt for the dogma of any belief system that attempts in any way to dominate those who do not share its beliefs. Perhaps I am still a "little heathen" at heart.

"On Nazis and Fascists as Christians, I believe the point Prothero was trying to make was that these groups were calling themselves Christians."

And he had a valid point. Still, many comments on this site have used Nazism to try to slander either Christianity or atheism. People on each side are trying to prove that the other side's dogma inevitably leads to hate and genocide. I see it as a pointless argument.

On Nazis and Fascists as Christians, I believe the point Prothero was trying to make was that these groups were calling themselves Christians. So Christians in the US who didn't want to be seen as sympathetic started to call themselves "Judeo-Christians." For an excellent study of Nazis as Christians, see Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler (Yale University Press, 1985).

Dear Susan,

I admire your willingness to make an honest and personal post. It reminded me of when I was a boy, and my parents enrolled me in Holy Angels Cathedral School which was then staffed by the Sisters of Notre Dame. Many of these ladies were then getting on in years and came from a different more fundamentalist culture with many actually believing the idea that the world was created just four-thousand years ago. My parents were eventually asked to dis-enroll me because of my questioning of these beliefs. I would bring in magazines with articles about paleontology with time lines going back hundreds of millions of years. When the other boys saw how much this upset the Nuns I began to develop a following. I guess I was thought of as a "little pagan". Like you, I remember how hurtful and intolerant these people were to those who were different in any way. I also had an antipathy to Christians for years, but I have since concluded is not because these people were Christian that they were so hostile and rigid. It is possible that they would have been even worse on their own.

The story of The Fall seems more relevant over the years as I have encountered a wide variety of people and read more history. It is a life-long project to try to overcome and correct our flaws, shortcomings, and fallen nature. Over the years, I have increasingly found the primary Christian documents, if not all the practitioners, to be of interest. The gospels speak of imperfect people, and a call to a different way of life than what we mostly live.

The story of the Good Samaritan (with its temple priest who left a wounded man for dead because he did not want to become ritually impure by touching him and its much despised and discriminated against Samaritan who bound the man's wounds and secured lodging for him so he could recuperate) must have been dismaying in a world where it was normal to see neighboring tribes as inferior. It asked: who is the better neighbor the "righteous" priest, or the "inferior" Good Samaritan? This is a question that we have not finished answering as a society. So I think the so-called Christians you have met would do well read the material that they claim espouse. I am sorry to hear that you have been discriminated against by intolerant people who claim to be Christian. It sounds like you are doing a thoughtful and well considered job of your journey through life. All the best to you as you go.

Jack Carstens, just about every religion in the world has seen tremendous good and tremendous evil committed by its followers. We could spend months here analyzing those histories, but what would be the point? In my view, those histories do not prove that some religions are better or worse than others. To me, that just proves that the problem is dogma.

By "dogma" I refer to any belief system that demands that people accept it or face some sort of punishment, either from an earthly authority or by a supernatural authority. This definitely includes communism and fascism, which I see as religious dogmas without supernatural elements. No authority should ever require the individual to believe something. Not only is that against the principle of freedom of conscience, it is also against the principle of individual faith.

From the horse's mouth (or perhaps from the horse's a**):

The response of Pope Pius XII to the request that he condemn the Nazi invasion of (Protestant) Norway was that there were only 2,619 Catholics in Norway, and that "the Holy See must keep in mind the 30,000,000 German Catholics in its activities." (L'Osservatore Romano -- April, 1940).

*******

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality." - Adolf Hiter, The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

"Today Christians stand at the head of Germany. I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years." - Adolf Hitler. Ibid, pg. 871-872.

*******

Martin Luther's (prescient?) suggestions as to what should be done regarding the Jewish "problem" in Germany. From "The Jews and Their Lies," 1543:

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians."

"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies."

"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."

"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb."

"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like."

"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping."

"Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam."

How Christian !!!!

As a Native American (Apache, though I prefer the word "N'de"), I find discussions such as this both amusing and sad. As a child, numerous Federal laws -- actively supported by Christianists -- prohibited me from practicing my religion until 1978 when the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed by Congress. As an example, an extremely important ceremony among my people is "na'ii'ees," the Sunrise or Puberty ceremony for young girls. Because this four-day ceremony, central to our culture and religion, was prohibited by Federal laws, my family and clan conducted it for me in secret and shortened it to a two-day ceremony. For many years I felt that part of my life and culture had been stolen from me by the government and by the so-called Christian teachers at the mission school who had a number of choice names ("little heathen" seemed to be the most popular) for a smart-a** girl who occasionally had the audacity to question their teachings.

I have since mellowed considerably, but my antipathy toward Christianists and Christianism remains to this day. As an aside, the only overt discrimination that I have ever experienced in my life has been that directed at me by so-called Christians.

As a consequence of my encounters with Christianists, I sometimes think of the following story -- perhaps apocryphal -- that was at one time told with great relish on the Rez: A young minister of the gospel came to a mission on the Rez to spread the word of god. After a few weeks, he was given the name "Walking Eagle" by the locals. The young reverend was very proud of his "injun" name and had it printed on the church bulletin and stationery which, unbeknownst to him, resulted in more than a few guffaws at his expense. You see, he was given the name Walking Eagle because he was so full of sh*t that he couldn't fly.

Dear Anonymous:

The statement "...in WW2 Europe Christians gave Christians a bad name by failing to stand up to the oppressive power of the Nazis and Fascists within their own society." should be reconsidered.

I used to have a friend who was a Jewish Holocaust survivor. He was a youngster in Poland in 1939. When I said something like you posted here about Christians who let this go on he told me a different story.

When the SS came to his village with their submachine guns to round up the Jews and kill them, the local Catholic priest interposed himself between the SS gunners and the Jews. He told them that they would have to kill him down to get a clear shot. They shot him down first. My friend escaped the slaughter and, after years on the run, he came to America. He died peacefully a few years ago of old age, with many Christian friends mourning his passing.

It is easy to make naive and simplistic judgements of others, but I wonder how long you would have lasted in front of SS machine guns; or if I would shown had the courage of that priest. Over twenty-five thousand of his brothers were hunted down and murdered in the camps and villages by the Nazis. The choices open to the average Germans and Poles were difficult beyond our comprehension.

Good points, Ba'al. I suggest that as far as government is concerned, terms like "Judeo-Christian" and "atheist" are irrelevant. Government has no position on whether God exists, or whether such a God fits the monotheistic model or the pantheistic model or some other model. Those matters are for the individual citizen to decide for himself or herself.

As an aside, I say again that the term "Judeo-Christian" is very annoying, since the core beliefs of the two religions are at their theological core incommensurable. You don't need to read very deeply to discern that the Gods portrayed in the Old and New Testaments are entirely different in tone, and the "paths to salvation" are completely different (insofar as the concept is more or less meaningless to Jews). The term also suggests a degree of tolerance that is very recent, and that is probably not very deep in certain areas to this day. There were legally enforced real estate covenants in place as recently as the 1950s that prevented my (Jewish) father from buying a house in certain areas.

Not surprisingly, this term is used primarily by political conservatives attempting to appeal to "values voters" on the basis of "moral issues". For that reason I consider the term an affront to all that is decent.

"Obviously, it admits Muslims in what had once been a Protestant-Catholic-Jewish club."

One can write nonsense like this only be ignoring what actually happens in this country. To see this, all you need to do is look at the response to the election of Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to Congress. Try Googling the names Keith Ellison and Glenn Beck and you will see what I mean. I was sarcastic when I suggested the idea that America should be called an "Abramamic" country a few days back, since the very hint of this would cause the heads of many conservative Christians to explode.

It is true that there are Hindus, Taoists, and Budhists in America. Not mentioned is that there are probably more atheists than these other groups combined if one uses any sort of reasonable definition of atheism. Such a definition would include all those who reject or very strongly doubt the existence of any sort of supernatural being that can intercede on one's behalf as a result of prayer, sacrifice or any other ritual. By that definition, people who hold a vague idea such as "God is in everything" are actually atheists, even if they would be horrified by the term; even if they occasionally attend a religious ritual as a celebration of their ethnicity.

Reading all this stuff leaves an interesting impression. The most pious posters all seem slightly insane to a dis-interested observer. It is amazingly true that if religion weren't so universal and acceptable, an individual person espousing religious concepts, ie, being prompted by "spirits", believing impossible things, etc., would actually be considered insane.

Is Cow also a God in hindus? And Is Ram fictional Character?

The statement "This began to change during World War II, when Nazis and Fascists in Europe gave Christians a bad name" misses the point in WW2 Europe Christians gave Christians a bad name by failing to stand up to the oppressive power of the Nazis and Fascists within their own society.

To a large extent, what most churches profess as christianity really has very little to do with what Christ taught. Christ taught inclusiveness and openly challanged oppressive power of both religous authority and the state. Christanity has been so throughly co-opted that it can not bring itself to challange oppressive actions by "so called" Christian authorities or the government.

If America were to become a practicing Christian nation we would most likely eliminate all but a small fragment of our military forces, seriously rethink controls on capitalism, and immediately focus the bulk of our wealth on fighting poverity both at home and overseas.

Christians in America all to often seek "cheap grace" without understanding the implications of claiming to be a follower of Christ.

Been several women posting. I'm the one who was rather taken with Mark Eaton's inclusion of longevity in his list of real, true values our country lacks.

I do indeed value longevity and believe it would make a very good basis for a religion. Indeed, if the vity were longe enough, the question of an afterlife becomes moot.

“…I am not nor ever have been in favour of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people…"

-- Abraham Lincoln

Note to readers: HINDI is a language spoken by hundreds of millions of people inside and outside India. A HINDU is a person that practices or adheres to Hinduism. They are not interchangeble terms. As an Indian-American person I find it irritating when these terms are used as the same term. Also, it is derogatory to refer to someone of Indian descent as a Hindu, as not all Indians are Hindus.

Ms. Nafisah Mohamed,

If you're still reading this thread, note one reader's opinion that your post (the one that follows) comes the closest to commendable Christian charity of anyone's in the thread, even though you self-identify yourself as Muslim. Thank you!

"....and it is most fun eavesdropping into an American "conversation" on religion. Especially for a person of the "wrong" religion (Islam), gender (female,) colour (cafe latte), and region (third world/developing country/Asia).

"Think positive people. No one accused you or look at you weirdly in being adherents of a "false", "warped", "violent", "terrorist prone" religion. Whatever gets you through the night and day :)

"Anyone wants to think seriously about global warming, environmental degradation, poverty alleviation, diseases, inter-state and intra-state conflicts? Hair splitting about religion is of course, a luxury of the idle, the indulgent and seekers of alternate power and control. Ask any Muslim.

"Good night, good luck and may peace be with you all."

I'll append a quote attributed to Jesus: "Be doers of the word, and not hearers only."

FREETHINKER AND JUST WONDERING :
Thanks for the sanity check. Thank God for the inherent American decency and the ability to step back, note and and check excesses.

Excesses in religious beliefs and secular ideologies can and do kill, especially if one hold the view - there is two points of views,those that are wrong and my own.

The idea of speaking of America as if it were some identifiable entity with an awareness of deciding what it is or is not strikes me as ridiculous. Consider a population of two things, a 5 and a 7. What is the average ? 6. Is 6 part of the population ? No.

Child of Grace wrote: "I am saddened to see my tax dollars being used to teach children atheistic religion in public schools, but it does not make me hostile."

By "atheistic religion" do you mean "reality-based" worldview?

Just wondering....

Actually, Hinduism doesn't have many Gods, but rather one God with many faces.

"Hinduism" is not really a "religion" in the traditional meaning of the word. The word "Hinduism" was coined by people looking at Indian culture from outside. Indians accepted the term because of circumstances of history and because there was no better choice of words to define it to the outside world. The word Hinduism was mentioned only in relatively recent history. Likewise, the confusion whether "Hindus" suscribe to one God, multiple Gods or no God is a problem of understanding of Indian culture. "Hinduism" is a complex mixture of philosophy, belief systems and superstitions. The unique feature of the modern Indian belief system is tolerance and acceptance of multiple viewpoints and attempt to find some common grounds. Since every local diety is respected by everyone else the appearance is of the worship of many "Gods". Also, this system of tolerance has become enmeshed into the belief system because no one great "religious" leader exorted their followers to challenge that. Therefore, to pull in Hinduism in a discussion religions, is to simply the nature of Hinduism.

It's time our country evolve and espouse all religions and beliefs, including aethism.

It truly doesn't matter what the founding fathers thought at the time, or whether most of the country was Christian at the time of the country's inception.

Has no intellectual thought progressed since the time of the country's forefathers?

Hopefully we currently are more inclusive than our forefathers were. Hopefully that inclusiveness includes other belief systems - in particular those which seek communication rather than isolation.

The Bhagavad-gita in Black and White: From Mulatto Pride to Krishna Consciousness (Introduction)

http://interracialvoice.com/NBR_Intro.html

....."I am saddened to see my tax dollars being used to teach children atheistic religion in public schools"

Let me guess; You're not a big fan of modern biology?

Well that's too bad, because Jesus belongs in biology class just as much as he belongs in metal shop or algebra.

I know it's been tough teaching your kids about Jesus after Bill Clinton closed down all of the churches and banned religion in the home. But really, just suck it up and go undergound like they did in Nazi Japan or somewhere.

Child of grace:
"I have no desire to make us a christian country. I have every desire to see my fellow americans come to know the joy of eternal life with Jesus."

Such an epitome of oxymoron!

child of grace:

I am sick and tired of my monmey going to religious organizations that try to force their lord born out of wedlock on the rest of us.
As for eternal life through Jesus , you have been lied to and haven't read your Bible

From Zion shall come deliverer;
he shall remove wickedness from Jacob (Not Mankind)
and this is the covenant I will grant them (Israel-not World)
when I wash away their sins (NOT ORIGINAL SIN)
It is the sins of the House of Jacob that Messiah was connected to and not Original sin. If you read any other Hebrew Lit. you will find there was never any belief that Messiah was to grant people a hereafter; only that he would lead Israel back to God and the Promised Land would be restored to it's former glory

For why you have been misled and lied to go to
religuinquestioned.com which has an offer to shut down

To Mike:
I don't hate Christians per se. What I hate are the hypocracy and self-righteousness often exhibited by Christians and Christianity. Admit it, Christians are intolerant of non-believers in the first place.

To the Moderate and alike:
Celebrities of science such as Newton provides only a data point of one (not to mention that he lived 400 years ago when Christianity was really dominant over European lives). What's more logical is to look at the public as a whole, in which case there's definitely an inverse relationship between education level and faith.

Are you saying Christianity had a good name before WWII?
If so that leaves out not only slavery and the mistreatment and hanging of blacks as well as witch trials and the writing of retsrictive covenant deeds thatprecluded both non Christians and non whotes from owning property.
The reason it became to be talked about after WWII is that people grew spines and started to talk out just like gays now coming out of closet.
With many denomination still hell bent on treating gays which Jesus never said one word about and women as second class citizens just show how many want to take us back to the dark ages.

I wonder what purpose it actually serves to attempt to label America in the first place. What good has come of labeling Iraq as a Muslim nation? Does that help us fit the Muslims into our world or does that aid us in fitting Iraq into an American world? Does it matter?

Is love and thereby God not most merciful when it refuses to be fit into a box? (or label, as it were)

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I have no fear at what government, ACLU, etc will do. Jesus promised He will build His church and hell itself will not stop it. I am saddened to see my tax dollars being used to teach children atheistic religion in public schools, but it does not make me hostile. I love this country and I care for those who don't know the joy of a relationship with God thru Jesus. I am thankful for freedom of religion. I have no desire to make us a christian country. I have every desire to see my fellow americans come to know the joy of eternal life with Jesus.

JUST WONDERING: Good post.

You ask: "Why can't we all get along?? It must be because someone always has to be right..."

I BELIEVE YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS HAVE MANNERS that many in America have lost, specifically, mutual respect. You refrain from attempting to impose your beliefs upon each other.

For some incomprehensible (to me) reason, much of America has gone Evangelical, their hobby-horse, to proselytize the rest of us.

I WISH THEY'D READ YOUR POST...

I read all these posts and think to myself, "Are these all men? Where are the women? Don't they have any opinions? Do they read this stuff?". I think there was one woman called Caroline, but the rest seem to be men or unknown.

I am Roman Catholic, but I have many friends who are Jewish, Protestant, Hindi, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, you name it. I love them all - they are wonderful women. They love their children, as I love mine, and we highly value each other and each other's children. They are incredibly good people, by any religion's standard. They would NEVER want their children to die by being a suicide bomber, and I would NEVER want to send my child to kill their child. We are all children of some mother, and most mothers would rather die than have their child die.

My husband values children too, and would never condone such a waste of young lives, whether they are part of our blood, religion, country or not. Come on, already! They are supposed the future!

Are we liberals? Not really, so don't jump on that bandwagon.

Why can't we all get along?? It must be because someone always has to be right, and therefore everyone else who doesn't believe the same thing is wrong.

I can't even begin to express how painful this is, reading so many vituperative posts. But if I don't read, I'm living in an ivory tower or glass house. No matter where I look, it's shattering to someone. Who will pick up the pieces?

Different article, same silly comments.

We get it. A lot of you folks hate Christians.

I am a Daoist (or Taoist if you prefer), and have been so for over 25 years. And I heartily agree with the article.

As for ourselves, we do not follow gods, but a path that all may walk upon if they choose.

And that means everyone: gods, angels, demons, human beings, even animals sometimes use it. It is simultaneously crowded and almost empty. There is found none of the arguing of who or what is better (as demonstrated by so many other posters here).

To my mind, those that do not cause strife even while faithfully responding to the article seem to understand how that road works, too.

To David Crow:

Go slap Christians and see how many turn the other cheek.

They think the Virgin Birth is supposedly literally true, but the cheek-slap-turn part is obviously not meant to be taken literally. (Also the part about it being harder for a camel to fit through the needle of an eye than for a rich man to go to Heaven.) Listen to them yap about the war on Christmas! Onward Christian soldiers, boys! No turning cheeks HERE - it's us vs. everyone else! They look at you like you're nuts if you suggest they just have faith in their god to take care of these people - obviously their god relies on them to do His dirty work!

They will tell you that what Jesus said about prince of peace, lamb of god is either unimportant or misunderstood - because He also said "Think not that I come to bring peace, but a sword."

In any case, what Paul said is taken as far more important than anything Jesus said. If people just stuck with Jesus, they wouldn't get away with being such bullies. And it wouldn't be nearly so much fun.

Christianity have anything to do with pacifism? Are you on drugs? Since when?

Christianity is about being around when God the bogeyman comes and gets everyone else. There is no other logic and no other appeal.

Regarding Sukkee's post, while I appreciate someone remembering atheists of this country, it must be pointed out that atheisim is not a religion, thus requires no "faith". Rather, it takes logical reasoning, which renders it a philosophy. The entire faith-based model of America needs to be changed. I cannot think of anything more hypocrytical than claiming to be secular, and yet having every societal function based on religion. That really undermines the "separation of church and state" claim of this country (which is only on paper anyway). As far as the "American virtues", I fail to see any parallel with Christian preachings: you are condemed to hell if you don't believe us; what kind of liberty and equality is that?

To lump Christianity with Islam and Judaism as "monotheistic religions" overlooks the fact that both Islam and Judaism do not accept the divinization of Christ, which to them gives Christianity a polytheistic flavor.

Whatever your mind and experience have caused you to believe, well, that is fine and good - unless it intrudes on my beliefs. Monotheistic or not, secular humanist or not, in America, you are free to choose and be. The rest of the world can only marvel at that also and long to be here, where jobs, rule of law, and the urge-to-the-future all rule the day and the way. There is no God but there is an America. For that alone, I am thankful.

Thought-provoking reflections by Prof. Prothero. My main beef is that he seems to imply that Nazism and European Fascism gave Christianity a bad name. Fascism's glorification of power and force explicitly disdained Christianity's pacifism (e.g., Christ as "Prince of Peace" and "Lamb of God", his admonishment to "turn the other cheek").

The reshaping of America as a "Judeo-Christian" nation almost certainly owed to our collective horror we felt over the Holocaust, but not to a Christianity putatively discredited by Fascism. (It should be said that Latin American Fascism, on the other hand, explicitly allied itself with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, though not rank and file priests.)

Christianity doesn't need Fascism to discredit it. Those who call themselves Christ's followers, from Emperor Constantine to George W. Bush, have done a great job all by themselves.

It’s a good thing to be inclusive of diverse representations. I don’t think anyone would believe that this was written as much as it can be logically concluded. The unnatural aspect is for politicians to decide what sector must be included, or culture and religion to impose its superiority over another. When people advance and comprehend the true of nature, their mere logic would be found lacking in substance. I have come closed to the construction of the concept and it will be found to be a straight line between the material and the spiritual with concrete objectification towards a natural social order of society. When scientists and philosophers loose the positivism view of reality, nature may reveal itself to be the most beautiful phenomenon in existence. And no, it has nothing to do with New Age or Feminism or Macho for that matter…

Prothero gives a thought-provoking (or otherwise provoking?) analysis. While not Christian, even here in the Bible Belt I've come to love the general communal aspects of Christmas, Easter, etc. 'Peace on earth, good will to men' used to be a key theme of this season, and nobody sang Christmas carols more enthusiastically than I. One could handle the occasional over-zealous prosyletizer,
But the 'Jesus is the reason for the season' crowd has taken over, and thus excluded the wider community from anything other than frenzied spending and days off. Much worse, now that so many Christians are attending Christian schools, they are being indoctrinated in the idea that this is a Christian Nation (see 'Jesus Camp'). Some people actively promote the idea that Christianity be made our *official* religion. They cite the Founders as being Christian but refuse to distinguish between their practicing their faith in private and endorsing a national religion. Some zealots refuse to see that that because official state religions were the norm in the 18th century, the non-establishment of one by the Founders was effectively a repudiation of the idea.
Secular society (with private faith) is the backbone of America, reinforced by our pub